Tag : Tony Blair

Direct EU Taxation

Direct EU Taxation.

The FOC “Myth Series” states clearly that “We control tax and social security”
The Government negotiated successfully to keep a national veto over tax proposals. Social Security proposals are subject to an effective veto through a national ‘emergency brake’ mechanism allowing any Member State to refer a proposed law to the European Council (the body composed of national heads of state/government) for decision by consensus.

Of course, this means that direct taxation should specifically be out of bounds to the ECJ, according to the treaties. But it’s clear from the number of cases the Commission has brought recently, that both the Court and Commission are intent on brushing that rule aside.

Their ultimate aim is nothing less than pan-European Union tax harmonisation. They even have a Commissioner for duties and taxes Laszlo Kovacs, who is pushing to harmonize rules on VAT among the new and old member states of the EU. This would call into question exceptional rules such as the 0 per cent VAT on children’s clothing in the UK. Also the EU Commission yesterday backed moves to tax aviation fuel, purportedly to fund aid to developing nations – a step that would not only increase airfares but set the precedent for an EU wide tax, this will then be used to further the intention of tax harmonisation. .

So we keep our veto, big deal, this does not mean there will be no harmonisation of taxes across the EU, that is what they are pushing for all the time, it only needs Tony Blair to sign a piece of paper and hey presto, they have harmonised tax systems. The EU will then be in charge and have the authority to set the rates across the whole EU, so this government would have removed taxation from the political power of the British parliament and our power to vote for a party that promises to lower taxes or to increase social security spending.

The Constitution makes it clear that the EU will fund its own spending, it can only do that by direct taxation.

The New Privileged Class Speaks

The New Privileged Class Speaks

Peter Bradley MP for The Wrekin and the parliamentary private secretary to Alun Michael, the rural affairs minister has admitted that the hunting ban was not about cruelty to animals but was a class war, a grubby attempt to hurt those, who these labour MPs believe are the aristocracy.

“Now that hunting has been banned, we ought at last to own up to it: the struggle over the Bill was not just about animal welfare and personal freedom, it was class war”. “Labour governments have come and gone and left little impression on the gentry. But a ban on hunting touches them. It threatens their inalienable right to do as they please on their land. For the first time, a decision of a Parliament they don’t control has breached the lodge gates”.
“The old order is going, but its values continue to dominate the Tory belief system. In a culture that now demands equality of opportunity, too many Conservatives can only properly enjoy what others do not have.
That is why they have an ideological commitment to private health and public schools. It’s why they oppose the right to roam and a ban on hunting. For them it’s ownership of property, especially land, and not citizenship that confers privilege. It’s why they believe that the rights of minorities – or at least their minority – should prevail over those of majorities.
But in an age in which we are all aspirational and few are deferential, that is an increasingly unappealing philosophy. The tide is against the Tories as it is against the hunters and, now more than ever, the House of Lords”.
There are here some very serious concerns for all of us to consider, no matter what our views on hunting may be.

For seven long years these MPs have been trying to ban fox hunting on a platform of cruelty to animals, they have gone out of their way to try to show that hunting with hounds is a cruel method of fox control, they have never argued against the control of foxes or the necessity of culling them simply that hunting is not acceptable. Now when it is all over in Parliament, this cretin comes up with the real reason, nothing to do with cruelty to animals at all, we just wanted to hit the toffs where it hurt them.

Perhaps we can now ask this bunch of liars to repay out of their own pockets all the tax money the government has had to spend on the various countryside reports and on the time spent on judge’s inquiry’s into cruelty, when this was never the intention in the firsts place, perhaps they should also be made to pay for the unemployment of ordinary people their mean little law will cause. This also shows that the Country Side alliance were absolutely right to say that the case on cruelty had never been proven.

The hunters have never said that the rights of their minority should prevail over the rights of the majority they have never tried to force people who do not hunt to take up hunting, they have only ever said that their rights as a minority should have the same protection in law as any other minority group.

If this is a class war, who is it against, those who do have, as against those who do not, or is it simply about replacing one small sector who have wealth, with another equally small sector. Rather like the ruling class in communist Russia who just replaced the old system, but the people themselves did not get a look in. If it is about equality then why is it that the new elites can send their children across London to the best state school, or why is it that Tony Blair can get immediate National Health Service treatment that the rest of us have to wait in line for? If the old system is so bad how it is that Diane Abbot is and thousands of other ordinary people are allowed to send their sons to a private school, a right we all have to make a choice. So what exactly is wrong with choice the choice to choose to pay for private health care, the right to choose to pay for private schooling or the right to choose to go hunting?

Peter Bradley admits that this is a class war and it is about power, but the power of whom against whom? the power of the people to elect their own government, the power of the law to define what is and what is not allowed by parliament, or is it merely the power of a few elites elected by a minority of voters in this country to do anything they please, the power to ride roughshod over all our inalienable democratic rights.

It now seems that Peter Bradley and his crew want to hit the lords, where it hurts as well, perhaps we should all be extremely concerned about such an attitude. The House of Lords is not and was never put there to be a rubber stamp for the elected house, its job is not to just nod through the passing wishes of a short term movement, it job is to ensure that the laws of this country and the rights of its people are not taken over by a pack of deviant despotic minded yobs, its job is to protect the democracy of this country from people like Peter Bradley who believe they have an inalienable right to do anything they wish simple because a minority of the people who can vote voted for them.

The division of powers in our system government makes it impossible for our democracy to be taken over by a dictator, so any moves to remove that division are illegal, what we now see happening is that the rules that defend our democracy are being removed, the block to a dictator are being removed, and as Peter Bradley makes clear they will tell you anything to achieve their ends, they need to ban fox hunting because it is cruel, they need to have the power to remove and ignore any and all laws in this country and imprison anyone without trial because of terrorists, they need to issue compulsory ID cards because of terrorists, and so on, but what are they really up, to what is their real agenda. Obviously if we cannot believe them when they tell us the reasons they wish to ban foxhunting, why should we believe them when they tell us anything else.

The Police Use of UK anti-terror laws…


This from Euan MacDonald TransAtlantic Assembly: “If you’ve nothing to hide, then you’ve nothing to fear” runs the popular, logically-suspect response to those who worry over the civil liberties implications of the current raft of new powers that have been awarded to police recently. This argument is, of course, as spurious as it is superficially rhetorically appealing; we should therefore be grateful that the UK force seems intent on doing its utmost to demonstrate this by making use of their new powers in situations that can only be described as absurd.

Tony Blair cannot have been pleased, for example, to learn that the public relations nightmare that surrounded the ejection of an octogenarian from the recent Labour Party Conference, for heckling the Prime Minister over Iraq, was to be made worse by the police reaction to his attempts to return to the conference hall. They detained him under the “stop and search” powers of the Terrorism Act of 2000; this, of course, was “intended” to allow police to detain suspected terrorists for the purpose of searching them. It was used, however, to stop an eighty year-old Labour Party member from gaining access to the Party Conference.

The Guardian reports also that another elderly protester was stopped, and searched, under the Terrorism Act. He was apparently wearing a T-shirt proclaiming that Bush, Blair and Sharon were leaders of “Rogue States” (an idea proposed by Chomsky, amongst others), and demanding that they be tried for war crimes. Police records indicate, apparently, that the grounds for intervening were given as “carrying placard and t-shirt with anti-Blair info”, the “purpose” of the search being, quite simply, “terrorism”. We really need no reductio here in order to arrive at the absurdum.

Of course, neither man was arrested following their brush with anti-terror laws; this, however, is beside the point. It remains abundantly clear that the police are prepared to use these powers in order to control, frustrate and intimidate those who seek to make their voices heard in exercising basic political rights. And this is a dangerous game; as, the more difficult and ineffective peaceful protest becomes, the more appealing – and legitimate – other methods of making a point inevitably appear.

Gone Native

News: “Peter Mandelson, the EU trade commissioner, is involved in his first dispute with the Government since taking up his post after backing calls for a multibillion-euro boost to the EU budget.

Mr Mandelson has defied British demands for a freeze on EU spending by supporting plans by his new boss, Jose Manuel Barroso, the European Commission president, to expand its budget.

His stance puts him on collision course with Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, the Chancellor, and Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary – all of whom want a ceiling on future EU spending to be set at 1 per cent of gross national income for 2007-13.

Mr Mandelson said: ‘It is very important for the Commission to know where it is going. Great demands are placed on us. Those who place the demands also have the responsibility to willing the means.

‘If they want that combination of reform which means [economic] adjustment, they also have to will the support and assistance for that adjustment through reasonable social spending, structural fund spending, regional policy and rural development policy.'”

What do they expect as a British Minister Mandelson swore allegiance to the crown, now as an EU commissioner he has broken that oath and sworn allegiance to the EU. When he has finished his time in Brussels he will be placed in the House of Lords, where he will again swear allegiance to the Crown but will have a pension from the EU which is dependant on not going against that organisation, proving once again that to these people oaths mean nothing.

When politicians Break Their Own Laws

Telegraph | News | Christopher Booker’s Notebook:

Christopher Booker in the Telegraph asks the question who will arrest the “Who arrests the Prime Minister for this crime? A rather outrageous suggestion one may think, but one that is very much in the thoughts of many of us, as we see our politicians continually breaking, not only the British Constitution but even the laws they themselves made.

If we simply allow our rulers to rule with no respect for the law, then we are well on the way to tyranny. Someone, I forget who said that it is the electorate that keeps an MP honest, and the knowledge that they can be voted out of office at the next election, but I would disagree with that. In these days the top ones in the club all stick together and look after themselves, just look at the last two EU commissioners both now safely ensconced in the House of Lords, with their big fat pensions paid for by the tax payer, both of them were soundly rejected by the British electorate. Their rejection can only be view as a step in their career advancement certainly not something to be afraid of and certainly not something to keep them honest. The only way to keep politicians honest is to make them obey the law it is the law which must be upheld at all times by all members of parliament and every person who is in a position of power in this country.

The crime in particular that Christopher Booker is referring is the “extraordinary anomaly which arose during the referendum on a regional assembly for the North-East.

Among high-profile campaigners for a Yes vote were Messrs Blair, Brown and Prescott, all of whom visited the North-East in the run-up to polling day.

Yet, as was pointed out by Neil Herron, the director of the ‘North-East No’ campaign, the speeches and interviews by these ministers were in breach of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act”.

This makes it an offence for ministers to ‘publish’ any material relevant to a referendum during the 28-day ‘purdah period’ before polling day. Mr Herron has in his possession a letter from Ian Scotter of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister stating that the term ‘publication’, according to Treasury counsel, ‘also applies to speeches and press interviews’.

A letter from one of Mr Scotter’s colleagues states that ‘ministers are permitted to speak on the issues during the ‘purdah period’ if they make it clear that they are doing so in a personal or political capacity and not as a government minister’.

Yet when these eminent politicians appeared in the North-East, they took no obvious steps to make clear that they were not speaking in their ministerial capacity, but only as the MPs for Sedgefield, Dunfermline and Hull East.

A series of parliamentary questions has now been tabled by Lord Stoddart of Swindon, asking the Government to confirm that these letters correctly interpret the law – and to make clear who is responsible for enforcing it.

The Electoral Commission disclaims any responsibility. Whose duty will it be, then, when Tony Blair appears on television as Prime Minister during the final days of the referendum on the European constitution, to tap him on the shoulder and say, “I am arresting you for a breach of the Act”?

It may seem ridiculous, but if politicians are allowed openly to break their own laws, does it not become a rather serious matter?

EUsceptic comment

The Telegraph hits the jackpot with EUsceptic comment this Easter Monday, with this article
below
Daniel Hannan`s comment that you might as well vote for Duck a for all the diference it makes and David Rennie report on Blairs dishonesty over the EU Budget

Impoverished by the EU
(Filed: 17/04/2006)


A billion here, a billion there: pretty soon it starts to add up to real money. As David Rennie reports today, the final bill to British taxpayers for Tony Blair’s cave-in on the EU budget is about £20 billion more than was announced at the time. This is a truly stupefying sum. The idea has somehow got round that our contributions to the EU budget are trivial when set against the advantages of increased market access. But it is worth setting the figures in context.

The additional amount conceded by Mr Blair last December, £7 billion, is equivalent to the total police budget for England and Wales. The United Kingdom’s annual gross contribution to Brussels, £12 billion, is equivalent to the combined revenue raised by inheritance tax, capital gains tax and stamp duty. We are, in short, paying in an awesome amount of money.

And what are we getting in return? Our Parliament is hobbled, our countryside ruined, our fishing grounds plundered, our businesses asphyxiated with regulation. Even in his own terms, as a pro-European, what did Mr Blair get in return for handing away our taxes? Did the French agree to reform the Common Agricultural Policy? Did the net recipient countries express their gratitude to Britain? Of course not.

We made some disobliging remarks about the Prime Minister’s negotiating skills at the time, but don’t take our word for it. Listen to how he was received in Europe. Le Parisien declared that “Chirac won the match against Tony Blair on the British rebate”. Welt am Sonntag commented: “Tony Blair began the EU presidency as a tiger and ended it as a doormat”.

Of course, for Mr Blair, the figures are irrelevant. For him, Europe has always been more about demonstrating his internationalist credentials than about securing specific objectives for Britain. The idea of a cost-benefit analysis of EU membership strikes him as absurd, which is why he refuses to commission one.

Yet it is worth reminding ourselves, once again, of quite how much we are paying. At the last election, Mr Blair excoriated the Conservatives because of their modest plans to trim £4 billion a year from the tax bill. At the same time, he breezily expects us to pay three times this amount to Brussels every year. He cannot have it both ways. The next time he sneeringly asks the Tories how they plan to finance their tax cuts, they should reply, politely, “from the EU budget”.



Technorati Tags: , , ,

Beetroots and voting

This made me laugh and its true check it out.

“What can these blogs do? Well, thanks to the mechanics of search engines (something about which I know nothing), blogs get noticed very quickly. Do a search for “Europhobia” in Google, this site comes top. (For some reason if you do a search for “beetroots” it comes second, but that’s another matter…) So, set up a blog devoted to your MP, it will soon be one of the first results when people search for them”.
Europhobia

But the real point of the post is well made.
“Lest we forget, at a General Election you are voting for a local representative, not a central government. You aren’t voting for Tony Blair unless you live in his Sedgefield constituency – you’re likely voting for one of his mindless lackeys. You’re likewise not voting for Michael Howard unless you live in Folkestone & Hythe or Charles Kennedy unless you live in Ross, Skye & Inverness West. So why vote for one of their fellow party members without checking you agree with that individual first?”

The parties are asking us for a lifeline – well, let them sweat

Not a penny more of public money should be directed at propping up Britain’s political parties. For 20 years they have conspired to reduce public participation in democracy. Now they are paying the inevitable price — depressed membership,...

read more

Blair benefits from two-tier health system

Off Subject But.. Adam Smith Institute: “By Dr Eamonn Butler Health Tony Blair’s had his minor heart operation and is apparently in fine fettle, so good luck to him. Remarkable, though, how our leading politicians seem to get treated...

read more

Re-Writing the Constitution

EU Referendum on news today in both the Independent and the Guardian that the treaty will have to be re-written if Turkey is ever allowed in the Union.

Although GISCARD D’ESTAING would like his monument to EU integration to stand for fifty years, as a mark of his undoubted self beatification there is absolutely no chance of this happening, which will be a little disconcerting to the government who are already claiming that the proposed constitution is the last word on European integration.

“But what is even more remarkable is that anyone can believe – or believe Blair –. Before the ink was dry on the final draft, the colleagues” were already working on a successor treaty. Should the EU constitution be ratified, it is only a matter of time before new; formal proposals for another treaty emerge, ratcheting up the integration process even further.”

This is without doubt the only way to look at the Constitution, because it is quite clear that although they can no longer hide the eventual aim of the EU to become the full government and authority of Europe, it is equally clear that the process although mapped out, has not yet been completed. There is still the chance that some countries could slip through the net.

EU Referendum goes on; “We are told that the disclosure will undermine Tony Blair’s attempts to portray next year’s referendum as a once-in-a-generation chance for Britain to decide whether to be at the heart of Europe. Turkey could be admitted to the EU by 2015, meaning that the rewriting could take place in around 2013”.”

Between five to ten years is also the timescale that I had understood to be on the cards.

The point at issue is the question of the voting system in the constitution which is based on the populations of member states. Of course Turkey being a very large country will have a much greater voting power in the council if the system were to stay the same.

Commission president José Manuel Barroso has sought to reassure French opinion by trying to separate the constitution from the question of Turkish membership. He said: “If there is a need to change the rules later we will do it. But that is not the issue today.”

Sorry am I missing something here? Why would there need to be a change in the rules?

Not withstanding that the EU intergrationalist would want to take the process further and would want to change the constitution as soon as possible.

If the argument for weighted voting (which I do not accept) is because this reflects the size of the populations, then what difference will it make to that basic concept when Turkey joins?

They will have the biggest population, they should have the largest voting power, that is the argument we have to swallow in this constitution, when the rules just happen to place the most power in the hands of France and Germany, so what is the problem?

How can anyone who agrees with the present set of rules complain about them when they work in another’s favour?

I mean Dalia Grybauskaite, the European Budget Commissionerhas just got through telling the British government that “If you have bad times, you have been helped. If you have good times, you help others. Those are principles that most of us believe in. If one or another country start to revise it, it jeopardises the future of the EU.”and “The problem is that in Europe we need to work together to compete and survive in the globalised economy”.and This solidarity principle is one of the core ones”.

All good stuff when it applies to us paying more money into the EU but aperently not good enough for the the voting rights argument.

So what argument are they going to introduce to argue against their present argument, which itself argued aginst their previouse argument I wonder?

Archives

Bookmarks

RSS Eurealist

Meta

'
Powered by: Wordpress